Check out MediaPost’s SearchBlog yesterday (A Dream Cloud Computes The Future), which recounts the conversation Joe Rosenbaum had with reporter and blogger Laurie Sullivan about the future of cloud computing. Need to know more about the legal implications and issues? Call Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.
When the Fog Lifts, Don’t Be Surprised if You Still See Clouds
“If computers of the kind I have advocated become the computers of the future, then computing may someday be organized as a public utility just as the telephone system is a public utility . . . The computer utility could become the basis of a new and important industry.”
— John McCarthy, MIT Centennial, 1961
“Cloud computing” is a term used to describe the use of computer resources not solely as a communications protocol (e.g., the Internet), nor solely as a content or transaction host (World Wide Web), but as an application development and information processing service. To help explain further, to send an email, much like using the telephone, it makes no difference who your provider or host is or which carrier you use. There is a protocol that allows interoperability across networks and processors, and as long as the sender and recipient have an email address and access to an Internet connection, the email gets through. On the web, with access to the Internet and a browser (technology that displays content and functionality hosted at a particular Internet address), you can interact with the website – you can see the material displayed and you can "select" (click) to enable certain features.
Today, as a general rule, if you wanted to create, edit, spell check, save, send or share most content or information with someone, unless you plan on typing and formatting a very long email, you still need word processing, spreadsheet or presentation software programs to create and upload (communicate or store for display), or to see and use content that you might download. In a cloud-computing environment, all of these functions are resident in the "cloud." Imagine that you no longer needed a desktop or laptop computer processor, and all you had were input and display devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, monitor), which you could either carry or borrow wherever you went. Plug into a universal "outlet," enter your unique pass codes and authentication information, and you have everything you need – where and when you need it. Like telephone, electric or gas service, computing becomes a commodity accessible virtually anywhere and anytime, generally priced by usage, the applications, and the amount and type of storage for which you want and need access.
Cloud-computer services can be sold and paid for using plans not dissimilar to phone service – per call, per minute, unlimited, features, functions – and they disaggregate the user, whether individual or business enterprise, from the procurement, maintenance and operations of the underlying processors and software programs. Clouds can be public – made available to anyone on demand (think Wi-Fi registration based hot spots) or private (large companies can operate or arrange to have someone operate a closed-cloud environment). I summarize the basic characteristics of cloud computing as follows:
- Flexibility – the user can easily modify use, resources, demand, access and virtually every other resource, without the need to purchase or dispose of any equipment or software, other than input and output devices. Increases or decreases in processing, development, storage or other requirements can be managed easily in real time and on an infinitely scalable basis.
- Cost – commodity or utility pricing lowers user costs. Capital expenditures can be eliminated, license fees reduced and access fees managed more efficiently.
- Resources – shared resources enable lower per-user, per-unit pricing, and optimization of peak and non-peak loads across user communities. Resource upgrades and enhancements can be amortized across a broad user base, seamlessly and transparently to the user community. Inter-exchange agreements between cloud providers will enable continuity and recovery, load management, and resource backup capability at optimal prices.
- Independence – time, space and resource constraints become largely irrelevant to the extent Internet or web access is available.
- Interoperability – absent unique or customized requirements that can be managed separately by the user, standardized applications, development tools and protocols are simpler to maintain and operate, debug, update and support.
While security and privacy is always a concern – more so where data, in addition to processing capability and storage, becomes more concentrated and accessible rather than distributed – more users and businesses will have the potential benefit of stronger security measures than are currently affordable or in use, to the extent cloud providers can develop and implement strong security standards and protocols within their service offerings.
So who are the actual or prospective players? Well lots of prognosticators and labelers are out there, but here is my list in basic categories:
- Providers are those who procure, create, host and manage cloud resources and then sell access, services, features and functions in a cloud environment – wholesale or retail
- Users are those who need to use and take advantage of cloud services, features and functions, whether individually or as part of a business
- Intermediators are those who create intermediation and aggregation opportunities between and among providers. On the one hand, intermediators can bridge gaps between providers and create interface and sharing environments between or among providers. On the other hand, intermediators may begin finding niches in customizing or aggregating services, features or functions for particular industries or in particular regions.
- Developers and supporters are those who develop utilities, applications, tools, features and functions to enhance the cloud experience, make additional services and applications available, and who maintain and support the efficient functioning of the cloud environment.
There may be others – my list is not intended to be comprehensive or even definitive. I don’t have a crystal ball, so time and experience will determine what we cannot now predict. Four computers, interconnected to respond to the perceived vulnerability of centralized computing, were the origins of the Internet. Distributed computing represented commercial attempts to amortize costs, decentralize institutionalized information, and enable greater redundancy and recovery capability. Networking and web-based computing gave us the ability to communicate, share and store information across multiple processors and devices through share protocols. While it’s still too foggy to tell what the future will bring, cloud computing represents the next big innovative thing in making the power of the computer and the Internet easier to use, more available, more interoperable and more cost-effective.
When the fog starts to lift, we may see clouds on the horizon. Whether they are storm clouds or fluffy wondrous sights of joy, I leave to your imagination. Stay tuned. But no matter what your visions of the future may be, if you see a cloud and you aren’t sure what the legal implications might be, please feel free to contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.
That’s Cloud Computing, Not Smog, Spreading From L.A.
Although reports of dissipating smog may be premature, if postings from Google are to be believed, Los Angeles is officially in the cloud. Google’s online email and collaboration cloud, that is! City employees will now use cloud computing for email and working on collaborative projects together. Google hails cloud computing for the city of Los Angeles as something that “will improve the security and reliability of city email, transitioning from servers in the City Hall basement to hosted, secure data centers.”
Los Angeles isn’t the only place to fall in love with clouds. VISI, the largest provider of data-center and managed-hosting services last month (December 2009), announced a public beta of ReliaCloud – a cloud computing service available to users anywhere. Set up an account online, set up computer servers in one of the VISI data centers, and employee-users can access the service from anywhere – anywhere there’s an Internet browser and connection. Cost? Reportedly, the pricing starts at 5 cents an hour! Welcome to fungible, commodity computing. According to VISI, its cloud service was designed to be reliable, affordable and scalable. The beta is targeted at small- to medium-sized commercial users, and businesses can apply at www.reliacloud.com. And VISI anticipates storage and other services to become available over time as part of a suite of offerings. Just one example among many of companies offering and embracing cloud computing.
The United States isn’t the only country where cloud computing environments are springing up. Back in September, the city of Dongying in China announced a strategic initiative with IBM, where the city is hoping to transform its industrial, petroleum-based environment into a service-driven economy. The cloud will be designed to allow start-up companies to do testing and software development through the web, but will also include electronic government services (e.g., e-services). IBM has also set up cloud computing in the Chinese city of Wuxi, and was recently picked to build another cloud computing platform – Quang Trung Software City – in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon, the former capital of South Vietnam). For you trivia buffs, Quang Trung was an Emperor of Vietnam centuries ago. IBM is another emerging player, along with Microsoft’s Azure, Amazon.com’s EC2, and Google’s AppEngine, to name only a few of the more prominent participants in the growing move to cloud computing environments.
So, if your head is in the clouds or if all of this seems foggy to you, you should consider learning more – especially about the legal implications and issues. And you probably should start doing so BEFORE your IT, Finance, HR, Security, Audit, or Operations people (or maybe even the government regulators), come knocking on the door! Want or need help? Contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work. We’ll help get you out of the mist and back on Cloud Nine!
Wandering Lonely as a Cloud? Not One Cloud Computing Inventor in Texas!
In 1804, William Wordsworth published what is certainly among the most well known and oft-read poems in the English language – it begins, “I wandered lonely as a cloud that floats on high o’er vales and hills, when all at once I saw a crowd, a host, of golden daffodils.” Now even back in 1804, Wordsworth, no XML programming guru, was already talking about clouds, crowds and hosts . . .
So we read recently that NetMass, a Texas company, reached a settlement and had a judgment issued in a federal patent case involving a lawsuit by an inventor, Mitchell Prust, alleging that NetMass infringed some cloud computing and cloud storage patents. Mr. Prust had apparently invented a mechanism to allow web browsers to access application programming – a fundamental aspect of cloud computing. The settlement and judgment entered by the Federal Court in Texas (Mitchell Prust v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 2:09-cv-236) notes that NetMass had infringed three of Mr. Prust’s patents and enjoins NetMass from continuing to do so in the future. From current published reports, Mr. Prust also has a lawsuit pending in Federal Court in California against Apple.
This may be just the beginning of a wave of intellectual property lawsuits as cloud computing begins to evolve and become part of a commercial operational toolkit around the globe – not much different from those surrounding ATMs, online banking, networking and other once-emergent technology platforms. Stay tuned. You will be hearing more from us about clouds in the year ahead.
In the meantime, if your head is in the clouds (or perhaps just a fog), and you need help, feel free to contact me, Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.
University Licensing Gets a Jolt – Exclusivity Is Not Patently Obvious
This post was written by Craig P. Opperman.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has just overturned a lower court’s decision to throw out a patent infringement action brought by AsymmetRx against Biocare Medical. Why, you ask? The Appeals Court concluded in AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Medical LLC that the patent owner, Harvard, should have been included in the lawsuit. Why should you care? Bear with me, especially if you are involved in any way in licensing, exploiting or otherwise commercializing technology, inventions or other intellectual property related to colleges and universities – or in litigating related licensing disputes.
Harvard gave AsymmetRx an exclusive license (including the right to enforce its rights) under a fairly standard and typical “university” licensing agreement. AsymmetRx sued Biocare and won. So far, all is right and ‘normal’ with the world. BUT, not so fast. Biocare appealed the decision and – are you ready?- The Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit sent the case right back to the District Court saying, exclusive? Not really. Harvard should have been joined in the infringement action. What, you say? How can this be? Read on.
The appellate court ruled that reading all the terms and conditions of the standard university license altogether, AsymmetRx didn’t really have the equivalent of full ownership of the patent or the subject matter – exclusive license notwithstanding. So Harvard, the owner, must be a party to the action for any determination on the merits. Specifically, the Court stated: “When viewing the retention of the right to sue in conjunction with all of the other rights retained by Harvard, it is clear that Harvard conveyed less than all substantial rights under the patents. While any of these restrictions alone might not have been destructive of the transfer of all substantial rights, their totality is sufficient to do so.”
In other words, since Harvard, under the terms of its license, still kept a significant amount of control over the patent rights, AsymmetRx as a licensee did not have enough of an interest in the patents to sue without joining Harvard – even though the license terms purported to give AsymmetRx the right to do so. Hmmmm.
Who cares? First of all, universities may now end up having to be joined in every intellectual property infringement action or disputes over intellectual property rights – even though it/they may have given an exclusive license, including the right to bring an action in its own name, to someone else. Are the litigators seeing dollar signs, and are university officials seeing legal costs and additional expenses, in the licensing process?
Just as significantly, if you are a transactional or intellectual property lawyer (or if you are involved in the licensing process from a transactional, contractual or licensing point of view), it gets more complicated. Universities have crafted standard licensing terms which, with rare exceptions, are used in virtually all of their licensing arrangements. So do you change the terms and conditions of these license agreements, relinquishing a greater degree of control – in which case the contract might look more like an ‘assignment’ than a ‘license’ – OR do colleges and universities start gearing up for being involved in more and more intellectual property infringement and rights disputes and lawsuits? If so, does the license agreement specifically need to state that the university is willing or amenable to being joined in the action? What if it’s not? What if it wants to decide on a case-by-case basis? What if the Court decides the university must be joined anyway? What if . . .?
So, are you a licensee? An investor? A university? A rights holder? Doing due diligence? Negotiating licensing agreements? Representing any of these folks? You can do nothing and hope for the best, or you can contact Rimon’s Craig P. Opperman. In uncertain times, no one may have all the answers, but at least you will have an informed basis to make some decisions from lawyers who know.
Did You Miss Our Seminar: “Facebook Personalized URLs: Titanic Brand Opportunity or Tip of an Iceberg?”
As we reported previously, Facebook announced the availability of a personalized Facebook URLs, raising serious issues — yet another example of technology colliding with traditional intellectual property laws. In this case, laws intended to protect trademarks and brand names. If you followed the news, the promotional momentum created by Facebook’s offer has made every astute brand owner ponder the implications! While you, of course, should look at my previous Legal Bytes post on Personalized URLs, if you missed the informative one-hour seminar on the subject presented by Douglas J. Wood and myself, Co-Chairs of the Rimon Advertising Technology & Media Law Group, you can find it here: “Facebook Personalized URLs: Titanic Brand Opportunity or Tip of an Iceberg?”
WWW.IMaySoonBeLegal BytesWithoutAnyDotCom
Move over “Dot Com” and other “dots” you have come to know and adore. Soon you may be able to purchase a top-level domain corresponding to almost any word or phrase, including your name or brand. ICANN, which administers domain names, is accepting comments on its new Draft Applicant Guidebook; but if you really want expert guidance and advice on what this means to you and why you should prepare yourself for the changes, read our bulletin Branded Dot Com Internet Domain Names, and then contact John Hines, our resident authority Advertising Technology & Media Law partner. Dot’s nice!
The Doors of Perception Can Sometimes Lead to Harsh Reality
Although the California Appellate Court, Second Appellate District, has designated the actual opinion as NOT FOR PUBLICATION (this means you must consult the rules of the court before you cite this case), this past May, two former members of the famed rock band The Doors were held to have engaged in false advertising under California law by advertising a concert band using that name. Although a jury found the band members not guilty of trademark infringement or unfair competition, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that “false advertising” claims are not the same, and upheld a permanent injunction against the individuals using the name “The Doors,” or any name containing that name. The court’s ruling also precludes the use of the name, voice or likeness of deceased band member Jim Morrison, in promoting concert ticket sales, citing prohibitions under the California statute regarding rights of publicity. Rimon knows publicity and privacy, in California—and throughout the United States and the world. Always know before you show. Call us, we can help.
Just When You Thought File Sharers Would Know Better
So you think it’s nice to share? A Federal District Court has ruled in favor of Universal and Paramount Studios, holding that willful copyright infringement is committed when digital movies are downloaded from KaZaA, a peer-to-peer file-sharing service, and stored in a directory of shared files capable of being downloaded by other KaZaA users.
Damages Raise the Ante in Patent Infringement Suits
Just about a year ago, the Supreme Court in Grokster modified a decades-old ruling in the “Sony Betamax” case to remove the insulation automatically given to Internet service providers and hosting services when it can be shown that even with a substantial non-infringing use, a service condoned and encouraged (and made money) through illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. This month, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in favor of eBay which overturns decades of legal precedent favoring the issuance of injunctions as an automatic right granted to plaintiffs for patent infringement. The case involved eBay’s “buy-it-now” feature that permitted customers to buy items “now” without being involved in the auction process. Although the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to ultimately determine if an injunction was or was not appropriate, the significance of the decision cannot be underestimated.
By way of background, when a lower court first held that eBay’s “buy-it-now” feature infringed two patents owned by Tom Woolston (founder of MercExchange), the court ordered eBay to pay damages (approximately $25 million), but did not issue an injunction. That court reasoned that since MercExchange was apparently willing to license its patents, an injunction was neither necessary nor appropriate. Unfortunately, the next court on the ladder upwards, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, reversed that decision stating the “general rule” that injunctions must follow all infringement findings unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. Since an appeal was pending to the Supreme Court, the court held the injunction in abeyance awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held the lower courts did not properly evaluate the case under federal requirements. More importantly, language in the concurring opinion written by Justice Kennedy and signed by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer noted that courts must consider the broader implications of using injunctions because an “industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees,” and in those instances, “legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”
This language in the Supreme Court’s decision could deal a serious blow to companies that exist solely to engage in patent infringement litigation (so-called “patent trolls”) and who use the U.S. patent system to coerce lucrative settlements from companies who previously faced injunctions that threatened to shut down entire businesses. Hearken back to the RIM “Blackberry” litigation which recently settled. If the schedule had been a few months earlier, RIM could certainly have been much better positioned before choosing to settle for more than $600 million rather than face the possibility of an injunction shutting down (or certainly making life exceedingly difficult with work-arounds) an entire business.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the eBay case could lead to a higher threshold for injunctions, now that money damages are not automatically precluded (nor injunctions automatically issued) in adjudicating patent infringement cases. Some critics complain that the ruling creates the possibility that courts can become the arbiters of a damage-based compulsory licensing system, while advocates say the ruling will prevent companies from buying up patents and exploiting their litigation value, rather than the underlying invention itself—the basis for patent protection in the first place. Most analysts, however, agree on one thing—the likelihood that products subject to patent infringement actions will be threatened with automatic shut downs will start to decrease, increasing the leverage defendants have in any patent infringement suit to settle cases.